At one time in the mid-1990s, it seemed like a week couldn’t go by without some large gathering of States seeking to hammer out the terms of a new multilateral treaty with aspirations for universal membership. Such treaty negotiations have become a rarer phenomenon today with most meetings now emphasizing implementation of, and compliance with, existing treaties. And where new norms are called for, treaties are no longer the default vehicle — many States now favor using political commitments (e.g., the Copenhagen Accord) as an alternative to the more traditional treaty form.

Still, from time to time, treaty negotiations and all the diplomatic machinations accompanying them return to center stage. July appears to be one of those times. Starting today and running through July 27, the UN is launching a new treaty negotiation in New York for an Arms Trade Treaty. The UN General Assembly first proposed such a treaty in December 2006 in its Resolution 61/89. You can review a summary of the work of the preparatory committee since then here, including the Chair’s 2011 non-paper that outlines what an Arms Trade Treaty might look like. A compilation of State reactions to the Chair’s non-paper is also available.

The pitch for an arms trade treaty is a simple one — there are treaties regulating almost every other good as it is traded across borders; as one pro-treaty NGO representative put it, “It is an absurd and deadly reality that there are currently global rules governing the trade of fruit and dinosaur bones, but not ones for the trade of guns and tanks”. The argument goes on to suggest that this absence of regulations means that weapons can be traded to and misused by government forces or end up in the wrong hands of criminals, pirates, terrorists, etc., who then perpetuate death and destruction.

On the other hand, there are significant obstacles that may limit or obstruct any arms trade treaty. For starters, under the current rules of procedure, the treaty’s adoption will require consensus, meaning one State (think the US or Russia) could block it (it is possible though that a text supported by a sufficient number of States might be put before the UN General Assembly itself, which requires only a super-majority vote). Second, as the UN’s Register of Global Reported Arms Trade indicates, there’s a lot of arms traffic (and thus money) at stake. Thus, there is a wide array of stakeholders out there whose interests may not coincide with the sort of trade regulation that NGOs like Amnesty International envision. Third, there’s a looming fight over whether to include ammunition within the treaty, which will obviously have a fairly significant impact on the proposed treaty’s scope. And to the extent the treaty tries to regulate trade with specific actors (e.g., terrorists), there will undoubtedly be definitional and labeling issues that may make the treaty difficult to implement (for example, there is still no UN-accepted definition for terrorism).

As for the United States, the Obama Administration shifted course in 2009 and agreed not to oppose the current negotiations (which the Bush Administration had opposed in favor of better national controls). Still, the US faces a few daunting issues in any arms trade treaty, most obviously, that any focus on arms, even one limited to regulating trade in arms, engenders 2nd Amendment concerns and domestic opposition from those who resist federal laws or regulations relating to guns (and this will be true I suspect even if the Obama Administration negotiates a text that it believes steers clear of any U.S. Second Amendment jurisprudence). There’s also a question of continued US trade in arms to Taiwan and how the treaty would address whose law regulates the importation of weapons into Taiwan (with the possibility that the government of the People’s Republic of China might use any treaty to advance its position on Taiwan’s status).

In other words, there’s a lot on the table in New York this month. And I’m sure this post has only scratched the surface. So, I’d welcome reader input on other issues or views about the negotiations’ chances for success (or failure). I’d also welcome any pointers to a daily digest of the negotiation’s progress along the lines of the invaluable IISD reporting service that serves such a wonderful updating and reporting role in the international environmental context. I expect I’m not the only one interested in seeing how things progress.

The United Nations on Thursday called for a tax on billionaires to help raise more than $400 billion a year for poor countries.An annual lump sum payment by the super-rich is one of a host of measures including a tax on carbon dioxide emissions, currency exchanges or financial transactions proposed in a UN report that accuses wealthy nations of breaking promises to step up aid for the less fortunate.

The annual World Economic and Social Survey says it is critical to find new ways to help the world's poor as pledged cash fails to flow.

The report estimates that the number of people around the globe worth at least $1 billion rose to 1,226 in 2012.

There are an estimated 425 billionaires in the United States, 315 in the Asia-Pacific region, 310 in Europe, 90 in other North and South American countries and 86 in Africa and the Middle East.

Together they own an estimated $4.6 trillion so a one percent tax on their wealth would raise more than $46 billion, according to the report.

"Would this hurt them?" it questioned.

"The 'average' billionaire would own $3.7 billion after paying the tax. If that billionaire spent $1,000 per day, it would take him or her over 10,000 years to spend all his or her wealth," the report says.

It says that the wealth of billionaires grew at an average rate of four percent a year in the two decades before the 2008-2009 financial crisis.

"If that rate of growth returned with no wealth tax, the average billionaire's wealth would double in less than 18 years."The idea could appeal to the likes of Warren Buffett, the US tycoon who has complained that he pays a lower tax rate than his secretary. France's new Socialist government has caused consternation by vowing a 75 percent tax on salaries above one million euros ($1.24 million).

But the UN acknowledged that the idea is unlikely to get widespread support from the target group, saying that for now its tax on the unimaginably wealthy remains "an intriguing possibility."

"It has not been regarded as a means of raising revenues for international cooperation," the report says.

The document gives other ideas for international taxes, including:

-- a tax of $25 per tonne on carbon dioxide emissions would raise about $250 billion. It could be collected by national governments, but allocated to international cooperation.

-- a tax of 0.005 percent on all currency transactions in the dollar, yen, euro and pound sterling could raise $40 billion a year.

-- taking a portion of a proposed European Union tax on financial transactions for international cooperation. The tax is expected to raise more than $70 billion a year.

It also suggests expanding a levy on air tickets that a number of nations already impose to raise money for drugs for poor states through UNITAID, a UN initiative.

The report says more than $1 billion has been handed over to UNITAID since the levy started in 2006.

France has a one euro tax for a domestic flight in economy and six euros for international flights -- with 10 euros for business class on domestic flights and 40 euros on international tickets. The air industry fiercely opposes any extension of the tax, arguing that it already pays heavily in taxes and levies.

However, because of budget cuts, aid and development assistance to poor countries fell $167 billion short of promised levels in 2011, according to Rob Vos, the report's lead author.

The UN expert said the taxes make "economic sense" as they stimulate the green economy and "mitigate financial market instability."

"In short, such new financing mechanisms will help donor countries overcome their record of broken promises," he added.

Without commenting on any of the individual taxes proposed, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that if the new "innovative financing" is to become viable, "strong international agreement is needed."

Headline writers are funny. Republicans don't threaten the treaty, they oppose it - in numbers great enough to stop it.

"...anti-treaty advocates..." a.k.a. pro-sovereignty advocates.

"Treaty opponents claim ratification would effectively tie the hands of the U.S. Navy to conduct operations worldwide, because those missions would have to be reviewed and approved by treaty members." - Is that a claim or a fact?

Want some entertainment for these hot summer days? Try the theater of the absurd at the United Nations, where the Islamic Republic of Iran has earned a top arms-control post.

Iran was recently elected to the 15-member general committee of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty conference currently underway in New York. The conference is supposed to develop a treaty regulating the international sale of conventional arms.

We'd be laughing if the mullahs weren't peddling weapons to some of the world's most murderous operators. Tehran provides Hezbollah and Palestinian terror groups with the missiles they send willy-nilly into Israeli civilian neighborhoods. Iraqi insurgents have Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to thank for access to improvised explosive devices that have killed hundreds of U.S. troops and maimed many more. Two Iranian agents were arrested in Kenya earlier this month with 33 pounds of explosives they allegedly planned to use against American and British targets.

In their race to acquire the world's deadliest weapons, Iran's rulers have also violated every nonproliferation statute on the book. They have given the International Atomic Energy Agency the runaround for over a decade, currently banning their inspectors. The U.N. Security Council has passed six separate resolutions condemning Iran's failure to comply with its obligations under international law. Now Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will get to set the global arms-control agenda.

Perhaps behind the scenes the world's responsible powers are cringing at this latest U.N. charade. But then why do they keep paying the price of admission?

Obama Lets the U.N. Tie His Hands on Syria So why didn't the president feel obliged to seek Security Council authority for drone strikes against al QaedaBy DOUGLAS J. FEITH

To retain power in the face of a popular revolt, Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has killed nearly 15,000 civilians. From a humanitarian point of view, this is a crisis. From a national-interest point of view, it is an opportunity to undermine enemies of the United States in both Damascus and Tehran. But President Obama has treated the bloody turmoil, first and foremost, as an opportunity to strengthen the idea that America should subject itself to the United Nations Security Council.

In the 16 months since the revolt began, the Obama administration has neither promoted humanitarian "safe zones" on Syria's Turkish border, nor provided arms to the rebels. It has not helped establish a no-fly zone, nor has it supported NATO military strikes against Assad's forces.

At first, Mr. Obama vainly called for Assad to behave humanely. Eventually, he vainly exhorted Assad to relinquish power.

All the while, Mr. Obama has looked to the U.N. for answers. The latest: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked with the five permanent Security Council members and U.N. envoy Kofi Annan on a June 30 accord calling for Syrians to devise a political transition for their own country—and strangely suggesting that Assad's regime may cooperate in the effort.

The accord's vacuity is a sign of the support Assad enjoys from Russia and China, each of which has a veto on the Security Council. Obama administration officials complain about that support, but Russian President Vladimir Putin shrugs them off.

Why is Russia able to shield Assad, harm the Syrian people, and frustrate U.S. diplomacy? Because Mr. Obama has made the Security Council the focus of U.S. policy on Syria. This was not inevitable, nor was it necessary.

Asked why they have not done more against the Syrian despot, Obama administration officials talk resignedly about the need for multinational approval. "We need to have a clear legal basis for any action we take," Defense Secretary Leon Panetta testified to the Senate in March. "Our goal would be to seek international permission." U.S. Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder told a British audience in May that NATO lacked "clear regional support" and "a sound legal basis" to act in Syria. The legal justification, he noted, would "most likely" have to be a Security Council resolution.

This legalism is both bad law and bad policy. The Security Council is not a judicial forum. The U.N. Charter gives the Security Council the power to make "decisions" (special resolutions that U.N. countries are committed "to accept and carry out"), but it is precisely such mandatory resolutions that are subject to veto by any of the five permanent Security Council members. The council can be a source of useful diplomatic support and of legislative-type authority, but the charter does not say that council approval is a prerequisite in all cases for a country's military or other action abroad. Especially murky is how the charter should govern humanitarian interventions.

History shows that the Security Council is no touchstone of international legality. President John Kennedy "quarantined" Cuba during the 1962 missile crisis without any permission from the Security Council. Likewise without such permission, President Bill Clinton helped lead NATO's bombing campaign to defend Serbian Muslims in Serbia's Kosovo region from oppression by their own government. Mr. Obama has not sought Security Council authority for his drone-strike campaign against al Qaeda in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere.

When officials of the United States or any other country believe they have compelling humanitarian or national-security interests to do something, they do it. When an American president thinks U.S. interests require action, he may reasonably seek political support from the U.N. But it is absurd to make a fetish of Security Council permission, especially if the problem in need of remedy is caused by a close friend of Russia or China and involves the kind of violent, anti-democratic action that Russian and Chinese officials themselves often perpetrate.

Syria's misery is a window into Mr. Obama's strategic mind. However much he regrets the bloodletting there, he considers Syria less important than bolstering the Security Council as a means of constraining American power.

The same was true last year when Moammar Gadhafi was attacking Libyan cities and coming close to the complete annihilation of the rebels. Mr. Obama would not intervene until the Arab League and the Security Council called for action.

By refusing to act on Syria, the president is missing an opportunity to advance U.S. security interests in the Middle East, while benefiting Iran, the principal sponsor of the Assad regime. And by suggesting that America lacks international legal authority to act, he is undermining U.S. sovereignty. Presidents have traditionally striven to bolster America's sovereignty and freedom of action, but Mr. Obama evidently sides with the global legalists who see national sovereignty as a problem to be overcome, not a principle to be cherished.

Mr. Feith, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, served as under secretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005.

By JOHN BOLTON Leave it to a small, little-known agency to prove just how out of control the United Nations can get.

We learned last month that the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), which oversees multilateral treaties involving patents, trademarks and copyrights, has been delivering computer hardware and "technical assistance" to none other than Iran and North Korea. The U.N. body's actions are in blatant disregard of Security Council sanctions on Tehran and Pyongyang, prompting House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen to call last week for freezing U.S. contributions to the organization.

WIPO says it is merely fulfilling its responsibilities, in this case by improving the capabilities of Iranian and North Korean intellectual-property agencies. Translated: U.N. bureaucrats believed (or pretended to believe) that Pyongyang and Tehran wanted computer networks to beef up their patent offices, surely real beehives of activity. Whistleblowers who revealed the transgressions by going public with what they knew now face reprisals that could imperil their jobs.

Multiple Security Council resolutions sanctioning Iranian and North Korean nuclear-weapons and ballistic-missile programs prohibit not only direct assistance but also "items, materials, equipment, goods and technology . . . which could contribute" to those programs. Preventing dual-use technology from falling into the wrong hands has long been central to arms embargoes (including Cold War efforts like "CoCom" to deny sensitive materials to the Warsaw Pact).

Enlarge Image

CloseGetty Images .Consider the audacity of Iran and North Korea, taking candy from babes. By evading sanctions within the U.N. temple itself, these nuclear proliferators show how to defeat even broadly supported sanctions regimes through death by a thousand cuts.

Only the most willful or obtuse U.N. official could fail to grasp the delicacy of programs in rogue capitals like Tehran and Pyongyang. It defies credulity that WIPO would expend agency funds without bothering to check with its members—especially Washington, given America's global intellectual-property leadership. The lack of effective U.S. oversight only underlines the seriousness of the problem throughout the U.N. system.

One can only guess how other U.N. bodies are also undermining sanctions. As the whistleblowers revealed, WIPO initially did not feel restricted by the Security Council's sanctions. This reaction is symptomatic of attitudes throughout U.N. secretariats and in academic circles that U.N. bodies are not of and for their member governments, but above them.

WIPO could be disdainful of its members partly because of its funding channels—mostly licensing fees from treaties it administers, rather than from direct member-government contributions. Most U.N. agencies, by contrast, rely on "assessed" (that is, effectively mandatory) contributions from governments, allocated as percentage shares of each agency's total budget.

The current U.S. share is 22%, easily the highest. For years, because all members have one vote regardless of their assessment level, Washington has been unable to constrain U.N. budget growth even when it has tried.

The U.N. generally sees our 22% "tax" as a secure entitlement, with all the inevitable downsides created by the entitlement mentality. Only switching to voluntary contributions, where each member determines on its own how much to contribute, could fix this problem and restore American influence.

As harmful as the assessment system is, WIPO's license-fee funding makes matters worse. Such uninterrupted, fee-based funding systems, independent of member governments, constitute the "global governance" crowd's great dream. They hope to end even the residual possibility of Congress slashing assessed contributions, and they see voluntary funding as sure poison for their supranational objectives.

This debate is far from hypothetical. The main funding channels for the Law of the Sea Treaty—which President Obama has vigorously pushed the Senate to ratify—are analogous systems of royalty payments from undersea mineral production. This calls into question whether the treaty's decision-making provisions really give America the leverage that treaty advocates claim.

While the budgeting of international organizations may seem arcane, it is precisely in there where America wins or—far too often—loses its U.N. battles.

Mr. Bolton, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Surrender Is Not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations" (Simon & Schuster, 2007).

Strengthen the world by weakening the U.S., one would hope or think it is the Americans who would oppose this. Doesn't all foreign aid poll terribly? Isn't this the gaffe of all gaffes of this campaign? This is be one of several openings Romney has available to compete favorably in the foreign policy debate.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott wrote the United Nations to tell them, “Groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas.”GOP-USA reported:

The Daily Caller reports that Texas is balking at the idea of U.N. involvement. In a letter sent by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the AG warns that U.N. poll watchers “do not have jurisdiction in the state and will, therefore, be criminally prosecuted if they attempt to interfere at Texas polling locations on Nov. 6.”

The letter, addressed to Ambassador Daan Everts, came in response to the announcement that the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe will deploy scores of election monitors to the U.S. in an effort to monitor conservative groups for voter suppression or intimidation.

“Groups and individuals from outside the United States are not allowed to influence or interfere with the election process in Texas,” wrote Abbot. “This State has robust election laws that were carefully crafted to protect the integrity of our election system.

One down, three to go. The U.S. Senate this afternoon rejected a proposed UN Treaty on disabilities. All but a handful of Republicans joined in killing the Treaty.

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), the leader of the opposition said the Treaty would create an "unelected bureaucratic body [which] would pass recommendations that would be forced upon the United States if we were a signatory."

Inhofe elaborated: "I do not support the cumbersome regulations and potentially over-zealous international organizations with anti-American biases that infringe on American society."

Bravo! The Senator echoes a key point we have been making in our book Here Come The Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom.

While the UN Treaty merely encodes in international law, provisions that are already binding on the US in the Americans with Disabilities Act, any subsequent changes our Congress wanted to make would be forbidden since jurisdiction would have been transferred to the UN. And, any further regulations the UN chose to impose would be binding on us without consulting our Congress.

Supporters of the Treaty said that it was necessary to protect Americans with disabilities when they travel abroad. This goal is worthy and can best be achieved through bi-lateral treaties with other nations that do not bind the United States hand and foot.

This vote is crucial! Coming behind it will be ratification votes on the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Small Arms Treaty, and the Internet Regulation Treaty. We must kill these encroachments on our sovereignty too.

The Law of the Sea Treaty transfers legal ownership and sovereignty over the world's oceans and seas to the UN and obliges signatories to get UN permission for off shore drilling and to share their royalties and technology with third world countries. It also could be used as a backdoor way to enforce limits on carbon emissions.

The Small Arms Treaty creates an international body to police exports of small arms from companies and individuals around the world and requires signatory countries to inventory the small arms within its borders and to adopt whatever measures are needed to prevent their export - UN gun control.

The Internet Regulation Treaty is currently under negotiation in Dubai and is due to be signed on December 14. It will impose a charge for sending steaming video to anyone outside of your own nation. You will have to pay it and can collect reimbursement from the recipient. It is designed to make it too expensive for Russians and Chinese and others in autocratic countries to access steaming video.

Morris: "We have got to defeat [ratification of] all these [UN] treaties."

The secessionist movement should have begun with disbanding or leaving the UN as we know it. The UN with one 'nation' one vote, that includes all dictatorships and Kleptocracies, should be for talk, and not US hosted or sponsored. An organization of like minded democracies with some sense of proportion should be formed for negotiating treaties.

“Typically Anderson we use treaties to deal with international relations, to deal with the law of nations, acting on the world’s scene,” said Lee. “This deals with a lot of issues that are distinctively domestic in nature.”

Legal issues are well outside Morris's lane, but it is hard to imagine the UN not coming up something full of devious horse excrement of the sort Morris fears here. I'm signing the petition. It seems important to me to do what we can to keep senatorial spines strong.

As soon as the election returns were in, the United States voted to reopen negotiations on the Small Arms Treaty from which it had backed off in the summer of 2012. Now the Treaty is slated for signature in March of 2013.

The Treaty is designed to establish "common international standards for the import, export and transfer of conventional arms." The White House claims that the goal is to "fight illicit arms trafficking and proliferation" and assures us that it will not accept any "treaty that infringes on the constitutional rights of our citizens to bear arms."

But, as the Washington Times noted in a recent editorial, "it is hard to take the White House response seriously." The treaty requires signatory nations to "take the necessary legislative and administrative measures, to adapt, as necessary, national laws and regulations to implement the obligations of this treaty." As the Times wrote "The agreement's language is so broad, vague and poorly defined it could be stretched in a variety of ways that would pose a threat to the Second Amendment."

The editorial warns that "activist judges adjudicating cases arising under the treaty and enabling legislation" could use the provisions to require gun registration and limit gun possession, even to the point of requiring confiscation. If the judges who interpret the treaty could take the position that "anything that indirectly or incidentally affects the trade in arms would fall under its control."

The Times adds: "A ratified treaty, with constitutional authority, could be interpreted in a way that applies to any imported weapon or round of ammunition, those made with foreign components, those containing imported materials, those that might someday be exported, and those capable of being exported. If it affects the overall arms market, it could be said to be part of "international" trade, even if the item never leaves our shores. In practice this logic would give the government free rein to regulate all weapons, foreign and domestic."

The question for us is: Can we marshal enough Senatorial opposition to stop the Treaty's progress? The NRA has gotten the commitments of 51 Senators to vote against the Treaty if it infringes on the Second Amendment. But the phony reassurance the Treaty will offer to supporters of gun rights in the US might provide a fig leaf to get Senators to vote yes.

We need ironclad commitments to get the no votes we need.

Please sign this petition to go to the Republican Senators to get them to stand up for our Second Amendment rights.

Click Here To Sign The Petition To Stop The U.S. From Signing The Arms Trade Treaty!

After a wave of outrage stopped President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from signing the proposed UN Gun Control Treaty (called the UN Arms Trade Treaty), the treaty advocates are back with a devilish new strategy!

As we warned in Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom, the gun control advocates won't stop trying to impose gun controls on the United States through an international treaty to override the Second Amendment.

The plan was to sign the treaty on July 27th in New York, but you sent 700,000 emails through our web site (www.DickMorris.com) alone to the Senate and that led 51 Senators to urge Hillary not to sign. She backed off and the negotiations ended.

Now advocates of the Treaty, as we predicted, are back and have introduced a resolution in the UN General Assembly calling for the resumption of negotiations and outlining a new procedure to get it passed even if the US objects.

Under their plan -- likely to be approved later this month by the General Assembly -- the negotiators are not going to seek consensus (read: U.S. approval) but will write the Treaty as they please and introduce it to the General Assembly for approval. If two-thirds of the Assembly vote for the treaty (a foregone conclusion), then it will be submitted to the nations of the world for signature and ratification. Nobody will be able to change the Treaty, they have the option of signing or not.

When sixty nations have signed, the Treaty will take effect and be binding on those who have signed and ratified it.

Here's the rest of the plan: After the election is over, Obama and Hillary will probably sign the Treaty. They then won't submit it for ratification since, under the Vienna Convention, it takes effect automatically on their signature even without Senate ratification. That means that the Treaty takes full effect unless one of two things happen:

(a) Either the Senate votes to kill the Treaty, or

(b) The president or a future president renounces it

The first option won't happen. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid won't permit the Treaty to come up for a vote in the lame duck Senate session that begins after Election Day. He knows it would lose. So, as long as Obama is president and he doesn't renounce the Treaty, it will take effect without Senate action.

We need to mobilize to stop this end run around our Constitution. Once the Arms Trade Treaty is signed by Obama, it will open the door to international gun controls imposed by the Geneva-based enforcers of the Treaty.

(Nominally, the Treaty bars the exportation of small arms by private individuals or companies to foreign countries. But, in its enforcement, it obliges signatory countries to require registration of the small arms in their citizens' possession. And, if that fails to stop the export of small arms, it empowers the global body to take further steps, likely to include prohibition and confiscation.

Please sign this petition to stop the Arms Trade Treaty. We succeeded before in forcing a postponement, now let's stop the Treaty and kill it entirely.

To do this, please send this email all over the place so it goes viral and we get millions of emails to deluge the Senate, the President, Hillary, and the UN.

We'll add your e-mail address to our Alerts list so we can keep you posted on progress and next steps.

Thanks,

Dick Morris===================For the record, I've seen Morris's assertion about the legal effects of Baraq signing it but it not being ratified by the Senate challenged, but what he says sounds plausible to me but no, I did not study this question in law school.

Thankfully, the UN negotiations on Internet regulation collapsed yesterday in Dubai when the U.S. and Canada announced that they would refuse to support or sign any treaty that gave the UN's International Telecommunications Union (ITU) the power to regulate the Internet.

They specifically rejected the efforts of Vladimir Putin's Russia to control the Internet through international treaty. Russia had sought to give each country the power to manage the Internet within their own countries and Putin's ally Toure, the head of the ITU, sought to charge Google and other content sites for any videos used internationally. The goal in these charges was to make it prohibitively expensive for Russians to download video from foreign providers.

Russia had obtained support from a strong majority of world governments because each found it in their interest to suppress the Internet at home. Our hope was that the U.S. would block the treaty and it did!

The death knell of Internet regulation is particularly welcome to us at DickMorris.com. We have collected 100,000 petition signatures against the proposed treaty, which we first outed in our book Here Come the Black Helicopters: UN Global Governance and the Loss of Freedom. Our book was the first to explain the threat of the treaty, which had previously been negotiated in secret behind closed doors.

Coupled with the Senate rejection of the Treaty on the Disabled, these two new developments show success in rolling back the power grab of the UN.

This is a POTH editorial and as such it is suspect but it does seem to address a question of considerable importance to the international economic system in a thoughtful way.

===========================

When Countries Can’t Pay Their Debts

Published: January 17, 2013

A recent court decision in a long-running legal battle between investors and the government of Argentina has highlighted problems with restructuring the debts of countries that fall on hard times. The case, which is being fought in federal court in New York, suggests that policy makers must develop a more systematic way to deal with sovereign defaults.

The case deals with Argentina’s decision in 2001 to stop paying debts worth about $80 billion. The country eventually reached deals with most of its investors and banks to forgive most of the amount that they were owed. But some bondholders, including the hedge funds Elliott Management and Aurelius Capital, held out for a better deal and sued Argentina.

Until recently, the Argentina case has been a quixotic pursuit because American law makes it hard to collect money from other countries. But late last year, Judge Thomas P. Griesa of Federal District Court ruled that Argentina had to pay the holdouts as long as it was paying the investors who had agreed to the restructuring because the country couldn’t favor some investors over others under the terms of its bonds. Because Argentina has previously refused to pay the holdouts, the judge further ordered the banks and other intermediaries the country uses to make the payments from the money it sent to them. The United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit will soon hear an appeal of that decision, which has alarmed the Obama administration, banks and other countries because it could affect other cases.

The Argentina case, while unusual for being so drawn out, is just one of a rising tide of litigation involving defaults by countries. One recent study found the likelihood of such cases has more than doubled compared with the 1980s, and there were 61 cases initiated in the last decade. One explanation for the increase is that these debts are increasingly held by hedge funds, rather than banks, which often settle under pressure from policy makers in Washington and London. The threat of litigation dogged the recent renegotiation of Greek debt, which was ultimately resolved out of court after changes to local laws and intervention by European officials.

These cases have reawakened interest in an old proposal by the International Monetary Fund for a system of resolving the debts of countries that would be similar to corporate bankruptcy. The fund would oversee the process and another agency would make sure countries and their creditors come to terms that apply to all creditors.

That proposal has been blocked by the United States and others because they are uncomfortable about amending their laws and creating another international agency. They, and some in the financial industry, argue that many countries have been adding clauses to their bond contracts that all bondholders must accept a restructuring if two-thirds or three-fourths of bondholders vote to do so. These provisions would make it easier to negotiate settlements, but they do not address problems that arise when countries have multiple kinds of debts.

Some officials in the European Union are proposing a formal restructuring system for its member countries. Other nations may need to follow Europe’s lead if these kinds of suits start imposing onerous strains and responsibilities on banks and other players in the financial system.

Bold move. It shows that he has been reading the forum. Since this is a budget matter, what we might do is agree to pay the UN whatever the average or median country pays for one seat, one vote. Also move them out of NYC and into the heartland. ----------

Written on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 by Brian SwanScreen Shot 2013-05-15 at 11.53.34 AM

Every now and then a lawsuit comes along that singlehandedly changes our country. The list of cases that have painted a new societal landscape is long, with the most recent being NFIB v. Sebelius (where we learned that, according to our country’s final arbiter, the government does have the power to tax the individual if he or she does not purchase whatever insurance the law proposes). We may now add Bond v. United States to that list. But this one must be underscored.

The case isn’t being talked about in the media. In fact, you probably won’t hear about it at all, even when the Court decides the outcome, unless you follow constitutional law. For those who haven’t heard about Bond v. U.S. I’ll give a quick synopsis and then explain why this case is actually more terrifying than NFIB permitting the government to tax us for doing nothing.

Carol Anne Bond discovered that her best friend had an affair with her husband. Bond, a microbiologist by profession, stole a quantity of 10-chloro10H-phenoxarsine from her employer and ordered a vial of potassium dichromate online. The chemicals are toxic if swallowed or touched and are lethal in relatively small doses. Bond began depositing the chemicals on various surfaces that she knew her romantic rival would touch: door handles, mailbox, etc. On one occasion her husband’s secret lover did touch the planted chemicals. The result? A minor thumb burn.

Bond was charged, but not under any state law. Federal prosecutors rode in because of the mailbox tampering but brought charges under 18 U.S.C. 229(a)(1), which prohibits possession and use of a chemical weapon.

If this was the end of the story, it alone should anger everyone who holds dear the notion of state sovereignty—the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government police power, which therefore leaves criminal proceedings to the states unless the crime is of federal nature. But it’s not the end of the story. What I’m about to explain should not just anger conservatives, it should strike terror into them.

Title 18, Section 229 of the United States Code was written and passed in accordance with a 1993 international treaty known as the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and their Destruction. That’s right, the charges brought against Bond in her domestic suburban love triangle are intended for those who violate an international treaty!

Member countries of the treaty pledged to never use chemical weapons under any circumstances or to develop, produce, or otherwise acquire, stockpile or transfer chemical weapons to anyone. The treaty further required each member country to enact domestic penalties that prohibit any person in its territory from doing the same. This is the reason for 18 U.S.C. § 229.

Essentially, the treaty required each member country to implement the very charges brought against Bond so that individual citizens who violate the terms of the treaty could be charged. Without 18 U.S.C. § 229, the treaty would only affect official government actions, and civilians stockpiling or using chemical weapons would be unaffected. Section 229 makes sense in prohibiting an individual from engaging in chemical warfare.

So, the government is throwing charges designed for international chemical warfare at a lady who caused a minor thumb burn. Egregious? Of course. But the question no one seems to be asking is, why?

In criminal law, both federally and at the state, prosecutors have discretion over what charges to bring against a perpetrator, let alone whether or not to even bring those charges. “Prosecutorial discretion” is the jargon. So, why did the federal prosecutor, in his sole discretion decide to bring these types of charges against Bond when state level battery, and possibly attempted murder charges would’ve sufficed? It doesn’t make sense.

For an administration embroiled in controversy, one that sends the IRS after its political enemies, ignores its own ambassador’s cries for help, and even solicits official legal opinion on whether Executive power permits domestic drone strikes without due process of law, I believe one reason does make sense: to bring these charges against Carol Anne Bond necessarily tests the constitutional limits of enforcing international treaty prohibitions at a state and individual level. The Prosecutor was told to bring them.

If this is so, we’ll soon find out if international treaty provisions can govern individual citizens. (Whether a treaty can govern a state is a separate issue.)

If there were ever a plan to institute a global governance, this would have to be the first step. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are the last line of defense against global governance and that defense is at the very core of this case.

Paul Clement, widely regarded as the best constitutional lawyer of our lifetime, has taken on the case. He has already successfully argued that Bond does have standing to challenge the constitutionality of § 229. And he’s now successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to decide whether an international treaty can expand Congress’s powers and allow it to then implement and enforce treaty provisions upon citizens.

If Clement loses this case, the door is wide open for arms treaties, police treaties, and all manner of international law to come knocking, not at the door steps of our country, but at the doors of our own homes. If a treaty entered into by our government mandates that Congress implement and effectuates its provisions into our United States Code, we will find ourselves with a new ruler: the U.N.

Don’t think it could happen because of our Bill of Rights? Think again. For that is the very issue the Court has agreed to hear.

Americans must support Clement in this case. The government, in its position, is necessarily arguing that it seeks to hand over its powers to the rule of international law. You think we’ve lost the country now because of an insurance mandate? Wait and see what happens if Clement loses this case.

Under the new Treaty on Disabilities, now before the Senate for ratification, if the UN decides that homeschooling or private schools or church schools are not environments that "maximizes academic and social development" in disabled children, they can force everyone to send their disabled children to public schools.

The UN is pushing an international treaty to regulate how all nations treat the disabled. Since the US is way ahead of the rest of the world in this category, the UN treaty doesn't go further than our own laws do. But, once the treaty is in force, it would be binding on us and we couldn't change it without UN approval.

The Treaty was rejected by the Senate right after the election but the liberals are pushing it again and it is coming up soon in the Senate for ratification.

The Treaty would force other huge changes in how we treat disabled children. Right now, under existing US law, the state can intervene in a divorced, broken, or dysfunctional family and act "in the best interests of the child." But the UN Treaty would permit the state to intervene even in functional, intact families. It would supersede the family's ability to make its own decisions for its disabled children and would vest that power in the state.

In addition, there is no definition of disability in the treaty and many worry that the UN might expand the definition to give itself more power.

Please sign this petition to stop the ratification of the UN Treaty on Disabilities.

Click Here To Sign The Petition To Protect Homeschooling And Defeat UN Treaty On Disabilities!

BTW, Harold Koh, about whom I have warned here more than once, makes his appearance in this piece.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

American Sovereignty and Its EnemiesA group of powerful legal scholars are trying to make an end run around the Constitution.By SOHRAB AHMARIWashington

The George Zimmerman saga came to an end last weekend when a jury of six Florida women found the neighborhood-watch captain not guilty in the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. But even before the 15-month legal process had begun last year, the United Nations' top human-rights official had rendered a guilty verdict—against Mr. Zimmerman and the entire U.S. judicial system.

"Justice must be done for the victim," said U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay at an April 2012 press conference. "It's not just this individual case. It calls into question the delivery of justice in all situations like this. . . . I will be awaiting an investigation and prosecution and trial and of course reparations for the victims concerned."

Americans who ran across her statement may have dismissed Ms. Pillay as another U.N. busybody pestering the world's leading democracy. But former Sen. Jon Kyl thinks there is something more pernicious at work: Such comments express the desire, and growing power, of a global progressive elite to pierce the shield of U.S. sovereignty and influence the outcomes of the country's domestic debates.

Proponents call this movement "legal transnationalism," and as Mr. Kyl writes in a recent Foreign Affairs magazine article (co-authored with Douglas Feith and John Fonte of the Hudson Institute), "the idea that a U.N. official can sit in judgment of the U.S." is one of its main innovations. Transnationalists want to rewrite the laws of war, do away with the death penalty, restrict gun rights and much more—all without having to win popular majorities or heed American constitutional limits. And these advocates are making major strides under an Obama administration that is itself a hotbed of transnational legal thinking.

"Transnationalists are a group of people who are convinced they are right about important issues," Mr. Kyl says as we sit down for a chat at the plush Washington office of the law firm Covington & Burling, where the 71-year-old Arizona Republican has served as an adviser since leaving the Senate in January. "But they are in too much of a hurry to mess with the difficulties of representative government to get their agenda adopted into law—or they know they can't win democratically. So they look for a way around representative government."

Mr. Kyl knows something about representative government. After a four-term stint in the House, he entered the Senate in 1995 and quickly emerged as a serious thinker on defense matters. In 1999, armed with his collegial, unassuming personality and substantive knowledge, he led Senate GOP opposition to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The treaty's ultimate goal, he charged at the time, was "total nuclear disarmament," an effort by U.S. adversaries and global arms-controllers to defang America's nuclear deterrent.

Now he has taken it as his mission to defeat the transnationalist efforts to steer American law. And he finds himself once again contemplating treaties that don't bode well for the U.S. A favorite transnationalist tactic is pushing the U.S. to ratify treaties like the three-decades-old U.N. Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or Cedaw, and the more recent Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. Such treaties, Mr. Kyl says, "have a lot of loose language that in the hands of the wrong people can demand far more than was ever intended by the American people."

Take Cedaw. If the Senate ever ratifies this piece of "1970s feminism preserved in diplomatic amber," as one commentator described the treaty, the U.S. would become subject to oversight by a Geneva-based committee that requires signatory states to, among other things, "achieve a balance between men and women holding publicly elected positions"; "ensure that media respect women and promote respect for women"; and "modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women, with a view to achieving the elimination of . . . stereotyped roles for men and women."

Wiping out undesirable patterns of thought may be an easy proposition for illiberal regimes, but not for a constitutional republic. Says Mr. Kyl: "Once you have ceded authority to an external body to make decisions, our theory of government—accountability in officials, consent of the governed—is very difficult to uphold. So you want to give up sovereignty sparingly and only when there is a clear benefit to doing so. I'm not saying the Senate should never ratify a treaty on behalf of the people, but I'm saying it should take the responsibility very seriously."

To be clear, transnationalism isn't a conspiratorial enterprise. In the legal academy, its advocates have openly stated their aims and means. "International law now seeks to influence political outcomes within sovereign States," Anne-Marie Slaughter, then dean of Princeton's public-affairs school, wrote in an influential 2007 essay. International law, she went on, must expand to include "domestic choices previously left to the determination of national political processes" and be able to "alter domestic politics."

The preferred entry point for importing foreign norms into American law is the U.S. court system. The Yale Law School scholar Howard Koh (who was Hillary's International Law advisor during her tenure at State), a transnationalist advocate, has written that "domestic courts must play a key role in coordinating U.S. domestic constitutional rules with rules of foreign and international law." Over the past two decades, activist judges have increasingly cited "evolving" international standards to overturn state laws, and Mr. Koh has suggested that foreign norms can be "downloaded" into American law in this manner.

Academic transnationalists insist that their work merely extends the customary law of nations that has governed relations between sovereign powers since Roman times. They note that the Declaration of Independence calls for "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind." And they cite Chief Justice John Marshall's 1815 holding that American courts are "bound by the law of nations which is part of the law of the land."

But customary international law is nothing like transnational law. "It's really in the last decade or two," Mr. Kyl notes, "that the subject of a treaty hasn't been an agreement between two sovereign states but rather between the people of one country and their own government."

Another innovation has been the elevation of progressive norms, like Cedaw's prohibition of gender stereotyping in the media, to the status of customary international law. Previously a widespread state practice—for example, the ancient prohibition against harming ambassadors—would take centuries to earn the status of customary international law.

"But transnational law says a rule doesn't have to be in existence very long," Mr. Kyl says. "And it doesn't have to be demonstrated by countries through their actions. You simply have to have well-meaning people talking about it."

Cedaw, it should be noted, has been ratified by China, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, among other regimes with abhorrent women's-rights records. Yet transnationalists are fond of pointing out all of the areas where America supposedly lags the global gold standard: from the death penalty to state prohibitions on gay marriage.

"I wonder if we're also the only country that has all of the rights embedded in the first 15 amendments to the U.S. Constitution," Mr. Kyl says. "Does that also make those rights passé? I think not. We're the only country in the world ever founded on an idea rather than an accident of geography or blood. So the fact that other nations haven't gotten to our level . . . doesn't mean we have to throw in with them."

The transnationalists think otherwise, and President Obama has given them an opening to shape U.S. policy. Ms. Slaughter and Mr. Koh held top posts at the State Department during Mr. Obama's first term, and their tenures coincided with an aggressive push to ratify or recognize as customary law Cedaw and a host of other progressive causes.

For proof that the transnationalist threat isn't merely theoretical, look no further than the European Union. Says Mr. Kyl: "What they have now is a situation where their sovereignty has largely been supplanted by others who are not accountable to voters in individual European countries."

It was in Europe where these ideas were first implemented, and it is to the EU that transnationalists look as a model. Today over half of the regulations that affect Europeans' lives are made by administrators in Brussels, not by national legislatures.

These regulations include the EU's ban, announced in May, on restaurants serving olive oil in traditional glass jugs or terracotta bowls (to protect the "image" of olive oil); the prohibition against insurers charging women drivers lower premiums (sexism); and Commission Regulation 2257/94, otherwise known as the "bendy banana" law, which until recently required farmers to discard irregularly shaped bananas (don't ask).

American transnationalists look with admiration on Europe. "Once those laws are passed, EU institutions . . . look over national shoulders to ensure that they actually do what they commit to do," Ms. Slaughter has written. "This European way of law is precisely the role that we postulate for international law generally around the world."

Mr. Kyl is less sanguine. "When your society is regulated to that extent by someone who has no accountability to voters, something is very, very wrong," he says. "The transnationalists should be the last ones lecturing anybody about what ought to be because what is is the U.S. Constitution, which recognizes sovereignty in the American people. That is embedded in everything about our country. It's not outmoded—it's who we are. And if you're not willing to accept that, then you haven't signed on to the most basic notion of what it is to believe about our country."

second postStop U.S. Aid To UNESCOBy DICK MORRISPublished on DickMorris.com on July 25, 2013Printer-Friendly VersionDear Friend,

President Obama has asked Congress for $225 million for aid to UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. Aid was cut off when the UN organization admitted the Palestinian Authority to membership.

Now UNESCO has announced that it has included "the life and works of Ernesto Che Guevara" in this year's additions to the Memory of the World Register.

Guevara, despite appearing on t-shirts on college campuses throughout the world, was a thug and a monster. He is responsible for hundreds of executions which helped keep the Castro brothers in power in Cuba.

Please sign this petition to stop U.S. aid to this leftist sham of a UN organization!

GEORGE WILL: Our military is rightly leery of making a gesture; they're not in the gesture business. And they have a feeling that's what they would be doing. Throwing -- lobbing cruise missiles, these standoff weapons, into a country to make us, what, feel or look good? The president on CNN this week said, the use of gas is going to require America's attention and hopefully the entire international community's attention. Now, some people believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, the Loch Ness Monster, others believe in the international community -- it's a fiction.

I received the following email. Obviously we here tend to be quite hostile to the UN and the progressive mission to surrender our sovereignty to it, but is the solution really to get out? What are the consequences if we actually get out? Would we be less able to defend our interests? Would doing so leave the UN able to pretend that it is "the World Community vs. The Evil Empire" with China and Russia leading the "World Community"?

============================

Marc F. -- sixty-eight years ago a clandestine organization was born.

It was the birthdate of the United Nations.

And now, sixty-eight years later, our nation is in danger because of this very institution. The United Nations is threatening our everyday way of life, the freedoms and liberties we enjoy and the privacy our families deserve.

I want to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US. That's why one of the first bills I introduced this year in Congress was HR 75 to end all US participation in the United Nations.

If you agree that our nation is better off alone then cohorting with this organization that allows dictators into this country, then add your name to my petition today.

As the United Nations grows in power and authority, the United States sovereignty dwindles with it. Our country, under the dismal direction of the Democrats, is spending millions of dollars supporting a organization that undoubtedly endangers our children and grandchildren's future.

Add your name by following this link.

We have an opportunity to change the future. A chance to make our nation a safer place, and a moment in time to make history.

Join in me stopping the United States' participation in the United Nations. Add your name by signing the petition, and afterwards make your most generous contribution so we can distribute this to every corner of our great country.

Please join me and add your name to get the US out of the UN and the UN out of the US.

Photo - Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for actions that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas. (Photo: Graeme Jennings/Washington Examiner file) Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the...

Justice Department attorneys are advancing an argument at the Supreme Court that could allow the government to invoke international treaties as a legal basis for policies such as gun control that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, according to Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.

Their argument is that a law implementing an international treaty signed by the U.S. allows the federal government to prosecute a criminal case that would normally be handled by state or local authorities.

That is a dangerous argument, according to Cruz.

"The Constitution created a limited federal government with only specific enumerated powers," Cruz told the Washington Examiner prior to giving a speech on the issue today at the Heritage Foundation.

"The Supreme Court should not interpret the treaty power in a manner that undermines this bedrock protection of individual liberty,” Cruz said.Sign Up for the Politics Today newsletter!

In his speech, Cruz said the Justice Department is arguing "an absurd proposition" that "could be used as a backdoor way to undermine" Second Amendment rights, among other things.

The underlying case, Bond v. United States, involves a woman charged with violating the international ban on chemical weapons because she used toxic chemicals to harass a former friend who had an affair with her husband.

Under the Constitution, such an offense would be handled at the state level. In Bond's case, the federal government prosecuted her under the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act.

That law implements the Chemical Weapons Convention, the international treaty Syrian dictator Bashar Assad is accused of violating in that country's vicious civil war.

"The problem here is precisely that Congress, rather than implementing the treaty consistent with our constitutional system of federalism, enacted a statute that, if construed to apply to petitioner’s conduct, would violate basic structural guarantees and exceed Congress's enumerated powers," according to Bond's lawyers.

The Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino said the Bond case could have ramifications for many other issues.

"If the administration is right, the treaty power could become a backdoor way for the federal government to do everything from abolishing the death penalty nationwide, to outlawing homeschooling, to dramatically curtailing the states' rights to regulate abortion," she told the Washington Examiner.

This week, U.S. Senators officially picked up the United Nations' Disabilities Treaty for the first time since the international agreement failed by a vote of five last December.

Now in the consideration of Senate Foreign Relations Committee, it won't be long until the Treaty faces a full Senate vote.

Senators Bob Menendez and John McCain said this week "the Senate should ratify it this year" saying the globalist plan "is consistent with our nation's interests and values."

This, of course, comes as no surprise. The fact is, McCain and Menendez have been cheerleading this supranational scheme for months.

Not only that, Menendez -- chair of the Foreign Relations committee -- has been busy working on cutting deals with Republican Senators to buy votes for the U.N. Plan!

You see, the Senate globalists are doing everything in their power to secure enough votes to see this Treaty get ratified - they've have been pushing it since 2009.

This is why it is so crucial that we mobilize right away and demand U.S. Senators to oppose all "deals" and once again vote against the ratification of this Disabilities Treaty and protect national and parental sovereignty!

Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!

** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.

"This convention sets a precedent for treaties that would actually allow an international body to define our own domestic law." - Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

CRPD: An Attack on Sovereignty

Signed by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on July 30, 2009, the United Nations Disabilities Treaty - formally called "the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" or CRPD - is aimed at "protecting the rights of the disabled."

While this may nominally appear as noble effort, it's best the United States takes no part in it..

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) notes that "more than two dozen areas of national life including education, health, employment, accessibility, and independent living" would be affected by the U.N. Treaty.

"Ratifying nations must enact, modify, or abolish not only laws and regulations at all levels of government - federal, state, and local - but also social customs and cultural practices," says Sen. Hatch on July 10. "Ratifying nations must refrain from engaging in any acts or practices that are inconsistent with the treaty as well as ensure that all public authorities and institutions act in conformity with it."

According to Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, all treaties that receive the approval of the Senate become the "supreme law of the land."

Thus, if a Senate supermajority gives CRPD its consent, domestic courts would be bound to make decisions based upon international law in all cases involving individuals with disabilities.

Domestic abortion policy, for example, could easily be challenged under Article 25 which requires states to: "Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes."

Liberals like Hillary Clinton have long been calling abortion a women's "right," a vital component of "reproductive health," and this treaty could make that a reality.

The simple fact is this: The United Nations has no business determining domestic policy for the United States - a responsibility that resides with the American People alone.

Tell U.S. Senators to stand for the American Way and reject the U.N. Disabilities Treaty!

Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!

** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here. "Ratifying the CRPD will not establish a single right for a single American, it will not provide for Americans with disabilities anything that American law has not or could not provide." - Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT)

CRPD: An Attack on Parents

First and foremost, let it be said that the federal government - our government - already has many laws in place that directly benefit the disabled among us. We have the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, in addition to a number of others that benefit those with disabilities.

This said, we are already leading the world by example and without the aid of the United Nations.

But more than government, those responsible for the care of the less able are parents. Yes; parents - not government or outside institutions - are the primary caretakers, educators, providers, etc. for their children: those with disabilities and those without them.

The United Nation's Disabilities Treaty challenges this fact. Article 7, for example, states that "in all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

That clause "the best interests of the child" is determined not by individual parents but by a supranational U.N. board of eighteen. In other words, a far-off committee of "experts" - if this treaty is ratified by the Senate - would determine what our children need.

This is exactly why former Senator Rick Santorum rallied hard against this dangerous treaty in the final months of 2012. If a U.N. board is invited to determine what "best interests" are, they have the power to literally overhaul our entire way of life - particularly how we educate our kids. Under CRPD, homeschooling children with special needs could be prohibited.

We must urge our Senators to refuse to go along with this supranational agenda - we need to demand that they oppose this treaty when it is brought back into consideration!

We narrowly won before; we need to win again ...

Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!

** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.

United Nations not the Remedy

Our founders purposely created a limited government - one protecting life, liberty, and property - so that society was organized not by a centralized force, but by the cooperation between individuals and families.

In our federalist system, the government in Washington is the furthest government from the people and thus is designed to influence our affairs at home the least. The health and welfare of the People is in the jurisdiction of each and every state along with local government. This is because governments closer to the people take care of needs best.

So, if Washington is the most "far off" power in our tiers of governance, where does the United Nations stand? Nowhere.

That's right, the United Nations has no business - naturally or legally - over us, and we ought not invite them and create a very dangerous precedent.

Right now, we need to contact every Senator and demand that they defend the sovereignty of our nation and the sovereignty of parents over their children.

"This convention sets a precedent for treaties that would actually allow an international body to define our own domestic law." - Senator Mike Lee (R-UT)

ALERT: Dangerous U.N. Disabilities Treaty must be rejected! Take Action and Blast Faxes to Senators!

American Conservative,

Senate globalists have been working hard this month to move the United Nations Disabilities Treaty forward.

Senators John McCain and Bob Menendez have already made it clear that they want to see a full Senate vote on the Treaty before the end of the year, and they are doing all they can to lobby their colleagues to support the global scheme.

They argue that the Treaty is necessary to protect U.S. Veterans abroad, yet there is no evidence at all that the agreement would accomplish such. In fact, AMVETS recently pulled their support from the U.N. Plan because it would not "have any measurable, positive effects on veterans with disabilities travelling or serving abroad."

Disability advocate and former Senator Rick Santorum recently told Fox News that "there is no point in the in the U.S. submitting itself to review by the United Nations for something where we already lead the world."

(Watch clip here.)

"We don't have to sign-off on a treaty to show the world that we treat people with disabilities with more respect than, frankly, almost any other country in the world," says Santorum. "There's no reason for us to do this, it is simply another way for us to shift responsibility out of the hands of individuals, families, communities, and local governments, and give it to international bodies..."

With the Treaty soon out of committee, it won't be long until the international agreement faces a full Senate vote. We need to contact Senators now!

Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!

** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.

CRPD: An Attack on Sovereignty

Signed by former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on July 30, 2009, the United Nations Disabilities Treaty - formally called "the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities" or CRPD - is aimed at "protecting the rights of the disabled."

While this may nominally appear as noble effort, it's best the United States takes no part in it..

Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) notes that "more than two dozen areas of national life including education, health, employment, accessibility, and independent living" would be affected by the U.N. Treaty.

"Ratifying nations must enact, modify, or abolish not only laws and regulations at all levels of government - federal, state, and local - but also social customs and cultural practices," says Sen. Hatch. "Ratifying nations must refrain from engaging in any acts or practices that are inconsistent with the treaty as well as ensure that all public authorities and institutions act in conformity with it."

According to Article 6, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, all treaties that receive the approval of the Senate become the "supreme law of the land."

Thus, if a Senate supermajority gives CRPD its consent, domestic courts would be bound to make decisions based upon international law in all cases involving individuals with disabilities.

Domestic abortion policy, for example, could easily be challenged under Article 25 which requires states to: "Provide persons with disabilities with the same range, quality and standard of free or affordable health care and programmes as provided to other persons, including in the area of sexual and reproductive health and population-based public health programmes."

Liberals like Hillary Clinton have long been calling abortion a woman's "right," a vital component of "reproductive health," and this treaty could make that a reality.

The simple fact is this: The United Nations has no business determining domestic policy for the United States - a responsibility that resides with the American People alone.

Tell U.S. Senators to stand for the American Way and reject the U.N. Disabilities Treaty!

Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!

** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.

CRPD: An Attack on Parents

First and foremost, let it be said that the federal government - our government - already has many laws in place that directly benefit the disabled among us. We have the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, in addition to a number of others that benefit those with disabilities.

This said, we are already leading the world by example and without the aid of the United Nations.

But more than government, those responsible for the care of the less able are parents. Yes; parents - not government or outside institutions - are the primary caretakers, educators, providers, etc. for their children: those with disabilities and those without them.

The United Nation's Disabilities Treaty challenges this fact. Article 7, for example, states that "in all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration."

That clause "the best interests of the child" is determined not by individual parents but by a supranational U.N. board of eighteen. In other words, a far-off committee of "experts" - if this treaty is ratified by the Senate - would determine what our children need.

This is exactly why former Senator Rick Santorum rallied hard against this dangerous treaty in the final months of 2012. If a U.N. board is invited to determine what "best interests" are, they have the power to literally overhaul our entire way of life - particularly how we educate our kids. Under CRPD, homeschooling children with special needs could be prohibited.

We must urge our Senators to refuse to go along with this supranational agenda - we need to demand that they oppose this treaty when it is brought back into consideration!

We narrowly won before; we need to win again ...

Take Action! Blast faxes to U.S. Senators telling them to vote against the United Nations Disabilities Treaty!

** Send a free message to each of your U.S. Senators and tell them to oppose the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities! Sign and send letters here.

United Nations not the Remedy

Our founders purposely created a limited government - one protecting life, liberty, and property - so that society was organized not by a centralized force, but by the cooperation between individuals and families.

In our federalist system, the government in Washington is the furthest government from the people and thus is designed to influence our affairs at home the least. The health and welfare of the People is in the jurisdiction of each and every state along with local government. This is because governments closer to the people take care of needs best.

So, if Washington is the most "far off" power in our tiers of governance, where does the United Nations stand? Nowhere.

That's right, the United Nations has no business - naturally or legally - over us, and we ought not invite them and create a very dangerous precedent.

Right now, we need to contact every Senator and demand that they defend the sovereignty of our nation and the sovereignty of parents over their children.